Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
In chess going first is a big advantage. When very good players play against each other it is rare to force a win as black.
I'm sure some people have called chess racist, I think to most people that would be a rediculous claim.
Hmm… not convinced I like all the stuff about Truss and her private life on here. Didn’t really think the Boris stuff was that fair game either - I was more concerned how disasterous he was as a PM rather than what he historically got up to in his private life.
From my header on the Cox report -
"the Cox report describes an entrenched culture “cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed."
How people behave when they are in government and in positions of power matters.
Is there any suggestion of Truss engaging in those items you mention or are we just throwing innuendo around?
I've been given current information by someone in government about her. I cannot say more for OGH's sake. But it should come as no surprise - do a bit of basic research from the time that report came out.
It surprises me that a party which is having a leadership campaign because of integrity issues with the current PM should not take seriously this issue when choosing its next leader. But that does indeed seem to be where the Tory party is. No amount of sniping at those pointing out this out can change this fact.
Hmm… not convinced I like all the stuff about Truss and her private life on here. Didn’t really think the Boris stuff was that fair game either - I was more concerned how disasterous he was as a PM rather than what he historically got up to in his private life.
From my header on the Cox report -
"the Cox report describes an entrenched culture “cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed."
How people behave when they are in government and in positions of power matters.
Is there any suggestion of Truss engaging in those items you mention or are we just throwing innuendo around?
I've been given current information by someone in government about her. I cannot say more for OGH's sake. But it should come as no surprise - do a bit of basic research from the time that report came out.
It surprises me that a party which is having a leadership campaign because of integrity issues with the current PM should not take seriously this issue when choosing its next leader. But that does indeed seem to be where the Tory party is. No amount of sniping at those pointing out this out can change this fact.
I will not push this further based on the concerns you raise but I will choose to make judgments on the character of politicians based on the information in the public domain and not on rumour or supposition.
Seems like Truss's plan is to give away money away like there's no tomorrow. Johnson did the same with his Red Bus. Brexit'll make us rich! And by the time we discovered the truth Lulu Lyttle was wallpapering the boudoir.
If this splurge gets her through the next election that seems to be all she's looking for..
For economists her Nick Robinson interview must have been chilling.
Talking of Lulu Lytle, surely the key question the two candidates should be asked to help party members make the decision is which of them will be better able to stand the wallpaper?
By all accounts it's now covered in alcohol and vomit so my guess is Liz from the Red Wall
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
"Why should the public trust Rishi after he backstabbed Boris."
Telling you now this is going to be wall to wall painting Rishi as Judas to Boris' Caesar in the rw media. Rishi starts behind and they're going to make damn well sure he stays behind.
Cassius or Brutus not Judas
Also, Johnson stabbed May in the back, so what? Stabbing each other in the back in a relentless pursuit of power is just what politicians do.
Didn't Rishi stab Johnson in the front ?
The majority of the present Cabinet stabbed Boris in the back. At least Rishi had the decency to resign whilst sticking the knife in.
"Why should the public trust Rishi after he backstabbed Boris."
Telling you now this is going to be wall to wall painting Rishi as Judas to Boris' Caesar in the rw media. Rishi starts behind and they're going to make damn well sure he stays behind.
Hah rrealised I got my backstabbing metaphors mixed up, nevertheless Boris is still Jesus/Caesar in the eyes of the Tory membership and Sunak is "the snake"/Brutus/Judas.
Talking about stabbing, the ScoTories are sort of getting in on the act, though with nail files by the sound of it: Libby Brooks on the Graun feed has
'Liz Truss is struggling to win over Scottish Tories, as many fear that a “Boris continuity candidate” will have precisely the same effect that Johnson has done on their ratings.
Amid Partygate allegations, the Scottish Tories plunged to their worst electoral result in a decade in May’s council elections.
Party sources have briefed that Truss, despite her Paisley upbringing and claims to be a “child of the union”, is “too close to Boris”.
Only one MSP – Oliver Mundell – has so far declared his support for her, while former leader Ruth Davidson has written in the Telegraph this morning supporting Rishi Sunak, saying: “Now is not the time to gamble with the nation’s bank balance.”'
Hmm… not convinced I like all the stuff about Truss and her private life on here. Didn’t really think the Boris stuff was that fair game either - I was more concerned how disasterous he was as a PM rather than what he historically got up to in his private life.
From my header on the Cox report -
"the Cox report describes an entrenched culture “cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed."
How people behave when they are in government and in positions of power matters.
Is there any suggestion of Truss engaging in those items you mention or are we just throwing innuendo around?
I've been given current information by someone in government about her. I cannot say more for OGH's sake. But it should come as no surprise - do a bit of basic research from the time that report came out.
It surprises me that a party which is having a leadership campaign because of integrity issues with the current PM should not take seriously this issue when choosing its next leader. But that does indeed seem to be where the Tory party is. No amount of sniping at those pointing out this out can change this fact.
Truss is as toxic as Johnson.
But without the humour or rogeish charm. Cannot see what she offers to the average swing voter.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
EXCLUSIVE: I am told Keir Starmer will scrap the pledges to nationalise National Grid, water and Royal Mail.
Tuition fees remain in debate, I am told Labour will in the meantime focus on early education including bringing back SureStart.
Not nationalising water is a mistake. I think it would have popular support as everyone fucking hates the water companies. Charge a fortune and don't do anything for their money.
I personally think water should be nationalised along with the railways.
How's the baby Max?
She's doing really well, thanks. Was struggling in the heat on Tuesday but all good now. Booked our first holiday as well, we're going to Calabria in September which everyone is looking forwards to.
How's life for you?
I got a pay rise!
So glad to hear about the little lady, I am sure you're a great father. Happy you'll be getting away soon, I'm off to the South of France in August.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
In chess going first is a big advantage. When very good players play against each other it is rare to force a win as black.
I'm sure some people have called chess racist, I think to most people that would be a rediculous claim.
Its not a big advantage, its a slight advantage. In the masters database black wins are similar to white wins, theres no glaring difference, just a slight edge to white, engines put it at a fraction of a pawn (about +0.3 where 1 is the value of 1 pawn)
This is just utter lunacy, she's honestly made McDonnell look moderate.
Borrowing to fund tax cuts...is she insane?
The last time that the UK government ran a surplus was in the FY 2000/1. Is it your position that no government in the last 20 years should ever have cut taxes? Everyone that did, including Brown, Darling, Osborne, Hammond and indeed Rishi was effectively borrowing to fund tax cuts.
It is not in principle crazy. Whether it is a good idea depends on what the economy needs at the time. Cutting taxes in a recession, for example, is a form of Keynesiasm. Truss's point is that we are heading into a recession which she says is caused or at least aggravated by tax increases which are killing growth. I don't think that this is right. We are heading into a recession because of the aftermath of Covid on economic activity along with a serious supply side shock on fuel and food triggered by the Ukraine war.
My further concern is that we do not obviously seem to be struggling with a lack of demand. We have full employment, a huge trade deficit and a very large fiscal deficit boosting demand. We also have very high inflation, hopefully for a short period only. If the lack of demand is not the problem then it is less obvious to me that cutting taxes is the solution, particularly since that is inevitably going to increase demand in a tight labour market and future inflation.
So I think she is wrong about this. But she is not insane.
Homes England misses all of its housing delivery targets - Homes England failed to hit any of its housing delivery targets in 2021-22, blaming labour and material shortages and “challenges in the planning system”.
… the government’s housing agency missed its affordable homes completion target by 21.5%. It aimed to support the completion of 34,349 affordable homes in 2020-21, but only helped deliver 26,953.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
That makes Liz sound like the Sybian sex machine (don’t Google at work ) of the Tory Party. Engineered to be as efficient as possible at giving pleasure to the target consumer.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
In chess going first is a big advantage. When very good players play against each other it is rare to force a win as black.
I'm sure some people have called chess racist, I think to most people that would be a rediculous claim.
Its not a big advantage, its a slight advantage. In the masters database black wins are similar to white wins, theres no glaring difference, just a slight edge to white, engines put it at a fraction of a pawn (about +0.3 where 1 is the value of 1 pawn)
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
That makes Liz sound like the Sybian sex machine (don’t Google at work ) of the Tory Party. Engineered to be as efficient as possible at giving pleasure to the target consumer.
Well it seems to be working. Look at Mr Bart Roberts's posts for the evidence....
Hmm… not convinced I like all the stuff about Truss and her private life on here. Didn’t really think the Boris stuff was that fair game either - I was more concerned how disasterous he was as a PM rather than what he historically got up to in his private life.
From my header on the Cox report -
"the Cox report describes an entrenched culture “cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed."
How people behave when they are in government and in positions of power matters.
Is there any suggestion of Truss engaging in those items you mention or are we just throwing innuendo around?
I've been given current information by someone in government about her. I cannot say more for OGH's sake. But it should come as no surprise - do a bit of basic research from the time that report came out.
It surprises me that a party which is having a leadership campaign because of integrity issues with the current PM should not take seriously this issue when choosing its next leader. But that does indeed seem to be where the Tory party is. No amount of sniping at those pointing out this out can change this fact.
I will not push this further based on the concerns you raise but I will choose to make judgments on the character of politicians based on the information in the public domain and not on rumour or supposition.
EXCLUSIVE: I am told Keir Starmer will scrap the pledges to nationalise National Grid, water and Royal Mail.
Tuition fees remain in debate, I am told Labour will in the meantime focus on early education including bringing back SureStart.
Not nationalising water is a mistake. I think it would have popular support as everyone fucking hates the water companies. Charge a fortune and don't do anything for their money.
I suspect RP has a plan below that allows a nationalisation to be prepared for long term while in the short term ensuring investment was made without massive profits.
Can you see any flaws in his solution?
The likes of Thames Water don't invest. Or if they do it is mega expensive with consumers footing the bill. So instead, one of my StateCo providers does the infrastructure over the heads of Thames Water, using government borrowing rates, and the water companies etc are simply regulated to accept it or quit.
And if they do, they'll pick the most profitable for themselves, regardless of the damage and cost to others, and push out the best for the consumer and the country
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
I believe the stats are 52:48 in favour of White
The cursed number strikes again.
I put my hand up, I was wrong. I didn't know that.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
In chess going first is a big advantage. When very good players play against each other it is rare to force a win as black.
I'm sure some people have called chess racist, I think to most people that would be a rediculous claim.
Its not a big advantage, its a slight advantage. In the masters database black wins are similar to white wins, theres no glaring difference, just a slight edge to white, engines put it at a fraction of a pawn (about +0.3 where 1 is the value of 1 pawn)
OK, thanks for the correction.
No probs, and just rereading that apologies if it came across a bit snippy, it want intended to!
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
That makes Liz sound like the Sybian sex machine (don’t Google at work ) of the Tory Party. Engineered to be as efficient as possible at giving pleasure to the target consumer.
Well it seems to be working. Look at Mr Bart Roberts's posts for the evidence....
Absolutely, as I said she’s very well engineered. If I can stretch the metaphor a little further the problem is that like such devices she ends up looking absurd and a bit icky to non enthusiasts.
Hmm… not convinced I like all the stuff about Truss and her private life on here. Didn’t really think the Boris stuff was that fair game either - I was more concerned how disasterous he was as a PM rather than what he historically got up to in his private life.
From my header on the Cox report -
"the Cox report describes an entrenched culture “cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed."
How people behave when they are in government and in positions of power matters.
Is there any suggestion of Truss engaging in those items you mention or are we just throwing innuendo around?
I've been given current information by someone in government about her. I cannot say more for OGH's sake. But it should come as no surprise - do a bit of basic research from the time that report came out.
It surprises me that a party which is having a leadership campaign because of integrity issues with the current PM should not take seriously this issue when choosing its next leader. But that does indeed seem to be where the Tory party is. No amount of sniping at those pointing out this out can change this fact.
I will not push this further based on the concerns you raise but I will choose to make judgments on the character of politicians based on the information in the public domain and not on rumour or supposition.
I'm with Cyclefree on this. The question is what comes into the public domain during the leadership campaign, or afterwards.
Hard for me to be certain as they're working on a nearby rooftop, but next door's builders include a chap who was complaining about not enough people being loyal. I *think* it was a reference to throwing the PM overboard.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
And, in a series of matches, research has shown that the person who plays white first carries an advantage into subsequent matches, with a 62 per cent winning advantage at the elite level. This is despite players playing an equal number of games as white and black.
The advantage enjoyed by white is amplified further in the world of computer chess. In 2020, AlphaZero, said to be the world’s most powerful chess engine, played against itself in 10,000 games, taking a minute per move. White won in 86 per cent of the decisive games, giving it about a 6:1 advantage, though these games constituted only two per cent of the total— 98 per cent were draws...
This is just utter lunacy, she's honestly made McDonnell look moderate.
Borrowing to fund tax cuts...is she insane?
The last time that the UK government ran a surplus was in the FY 2000/1. Is it your position that no government in the last 20 years should ever have cut taxes? Everyone that did, including Brown, Darling, Osborne, Hammond and indeed Rishi was effectively borrowing to fund tax cuts.
It is not in principle crazy. Whether it is a good idea depends on what the economy needs at the time. Cutting taxes in a recession, for example, is a form of Keynesiasm. Truss's point is that we are heading into a recession which she says is caused or at least aggravated by tax increases which are killing growth. I don't think that this is right. We are heading into a recession because of the aftermath of Covid on economic activity along with a serious supply side shock on fuel and food triggered by the Ukraine war.
My further concern is that we do not obviously seem to be struggling with a lack of demand. We have full employment, a huge trade deficit and a very large fiscal deficit boosting demand. We also have very high inflation, hopefully for a short period only. If the lack of demand is not the problem then it is less obvious to me that cutting taxes is the solution, particularly since that is inevitably going to increase demand in a tight labour market and future inflation.
So I think she is wrong about this. But she is not insane.
Agree, but I think unwinding the squeeze on everyone's income that was applied from April with the NI increase (which Sunak has partly done anyway) wouldn't do any harm.
Hmm… not convinced I like all the stuff about Truss and her private life on here. Didn’t really think the Boris stuff was that fair game either - I was more concerned how disasterous he was as a PM rather than what he historically got up to in his private life.
From my header on the Cox report -
"the Cox report describes an entrenched culture “cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed."
How people behave when they are in government and in positions of power matters.
Is there any suggestion of Truss engaging in those items you mention or are we just throwing innuendo around?
I've been given current information by someone in government about her. I cannot say more for OGH's sake. But it should come as no surprise - do a bit of basic research from the time that report came out.
It surprises me that a party which is having a leadership campaign because of integrity issues with the current PM should not take seriously this issue when choosing its next leader. But that does indeed seem to be where the Tory party is. No amount of sniping at those pointing out this out can change this fact.
I will not push this further based on the concerns you raise but I will choose to make judgments on the character of politicians based on the information in the public domain and not on rumour or supposition.
It's amazing what you can get away with when you're more well liked than your opponent. Claiming loyality when you were preparing to run, just as the other candidate was, and in effect calling out the government and leader you supported as crap, even as you seek the votes of the side that adores him.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Er, can you point me to the source for the quote you attribute to Thornberry here?
It's amazing what you can get away with when you're more well liked than your opponent. Claiming loyality when you were preparing to run, just as the other candidate was, and in effect calling out the government and leader you supported as crap, even as you seek the votes of the side that adores him.
Every time she opens her mouth she reinforces the impression that she is as dishonest as Boris Johnson.
Hmm… not convinced I like all the stuff about Truss and her private life on here. Didn’t really think the Boris stuff was that fair game either - I was more concerned how disasterous he was as a PM rather than what he historically got up to in his private life.
From my header on the Cox report -
"the Cox report describes an entrenched culture “cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed." ...
Along with evidence of a remarkable lack of self-awareness: ...Members of Parliament shouting abuse at staff was something frequently referred to, with the abusive phrase “you’re f***ing useless,” shouted at close quarters, being described independently, by a number of people working in different departments, as a regular event...
It's amazing what you can get away with when you're more well liked than your opponent. Claiming loyality when you were preparing to run, just as the other candidate was, and in effect calling out the government and leader you supported as crap, even as you seek the votes of the side that adores him.
Every time she opens her mouth she reinforces the impression that she is as dishonest as Boris Johnson.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
It's amazing what you can get away with when you're more well liked than your opponent. Claiming loyality when you were preparing to run, just as the other candidate was, and in effect calling out the government and leader you supported as crap, even as you seek the votes of the side that adores him.
Every time she opens her mouth she reinforces the impression that she is as dishonest as Boris Johnson.
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
And, in a series of matches, research has shown that the person who plays white first carries an advantage into subsequent matches, with a 62 per cent winning advantage at the elite level. This is despite players playing an equal number of games as white and black.
The advantage enjoyed by white is amplified further in the world of computer chess. In 2020, AlphaZero, said to be the world’s most powerful chess engine, played against itself in 10,000 games, taking a minute per move. White won in 86 per cent of the decisive games, giving it about a 6:1 advantage, though these games constituted only two per cent of the total— 98 per cent were draws...
Trouble us thats tinkering to sort out the very highest levels. The masters database on Lichess covering titled pkayers games gives 33/43/24 white/draw/black so a moderate advantage but the all games database of iver 500 million games which includes all levels from novice to master is 49/4/46. The advantage increases the more 'computer accurate' you get. For 99% of players its minimal. They could look at increasing 'positive' results by changes like returning to stalemate being a win or the armageddon rules where black has less time but gets the win with a drawn game.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
FFS why stop there. What's wrong with eradicate world poverty and abolish disease?
It's amazing what you can get away with when you're more well liked than your opponent. Claiming loyality when you were preparing to run, just as the other candidate was, and in effect calling out the government and leader you supported as crap, even as you seek the votes of the side that adores him.
Every time she opens her mouth she reinforces the impression that she is as dishonest as Boris Johnson.
And at least some on the right would see that as a good thing.
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
The "allegations" are known about by all and sundry, It's not going to be a coronation because of those reasons.
"Why should the public trust Rishi after he backstabbed Boris."
Telling you now this is going to be wall to wall painting Rishi as Judas to Boris' Caesar in the rw media. Rishi starts behind and they're going to make damn well sure he stays behind.
Cassius or Brutus not Judas
Also, Johnson stabbed May in the back, so what? Stabbing each other in the back in a relentless pursuit of power is just what politicians do.
Didn't Rishi stab Johnson in the front ?
The majority of the present Cabinet stabbed Boris in the back. At least Rishi had the decency to resign whilst sticking the knife in.
He should have unsheathed the blade sooner. Probably PM now if he had.
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
EXCLUSIVE: I am told Keir Starmer will scrap the pledges to nationalise National Grid, water and Royal Mail.
Tuition fees remain in debate, I am told Labour will in the meantime focus on early education including bringing back SureStart.
Not nationalising water is a mistake. I think it would have popular support as everyone fucking hates the water companies. Charge a fortune and don't do anything for their money.
I suspect RP has a plan below that allows a nationalisation to be prepared for long term while in the short term ensuring investment was made without massive profits.
Can you see any flaws in his solution?
The likes of Thames Water don't invest. Or if they do it is mega expensive with consumers footing the bill. So instead, one of my StateCo providers does the infrastructure over the heads of Thames Water, using government borrowing rates, and the water companies etc are simply regulated to accept it or quit.
And if they do, they'll pick the most profitable for themselves, regardless of the damage and cost to others, and push out the best for the consumer and the country
Numbers to hand from I think the last report before COVID - 2018-2019. Nov 2019.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Er, can you point me to the source for the quote you attribute to Thornberry here?
Quite. It’s at least equally likely that she was bursting with national pride as she posted that
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
Vote for me, I was wrong on what you consider to be our defining political issue.
Well, it's brave. And it's actually probably the most helpful thing she could say, as trying to hedge won't help her.
But she does not want this to become a referendum on Euroscepticism.
Wait till she finds out she was a Minister and MP for 12 years of a government with the wrong economic policies.
Was she?
That. Is. A. Disgrace.
On the topic of her cheese speech - or the Jarlsberg Address as it should be called - I think too many people focus on the terrible delivery and too few on its terrible content. Truss's basic argument is that the UK exports - great! And the UK imports - a disgrace! Thus completely misunderstanding the whole concept of international trade.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
FFS why stop there. What's wrong with eradicate world poverty and abolish disease?
You're living in La-la-land pal.
The fear amongst left wingers here that we might get an actual Conservative Prime Minister who might succeed by cutting taxes is quite palpable.
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
The "allegations" are known about by all and sundry, It's not going to be a coronation because of those reasons.
Allegations about who people are sleeping with, is just tabloid fodder so long as it was consensual.
Allegations about policy issues have already done for one favourite in this contest, and may well do for one of those remaining.
EXCLUSIVE: I am told Keir Starmer will scrap the pledges to nationalise National Grid, water and Royal Mail.
Tuition fees remain in debate, I am told Labour will in the meantime focus on early education including bringing back SureStart.
Not nationalising water is a mistake. I think it would have popular support as everyone fucking hates the water companies. Charge a fortune and don't do anything for their money.
I suspect RP has a plan below that allows a nationalisation to be prepared for long term while in the short term ensuring investment was made without massive profits.
Can you see any flaws in his solution?
The likes of Thames Water don't invest. Or if they do it is mega expensive with consumers footing the bill. So instead, one of my StateCo providers does the infrastructure over the heads of Thames Water, using government borrowing rates, and the water companies etc are simply regulated to accept it or quit.
And if they do, they'll pick the most profitable for themselves, regardless of the damage and cost to others, and push out the best for the consumer and the country
Numbers to hand from I think the last report before COVID - 2018-2019. Nov 2019.
I may have been unintentionally misleading with my choice of language. By "push out the best for the consumer and the country," I meant that their choice would exclude what is best for the consumer and country in favour of what is best for their profits.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
Just a shame she’s off her head.
People said the same about Thatcher herself.
If being on your head means nothing more than higher taxes and managed decline then we need someone off it. 👍
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Er, can you point me to the source for the quote you attribute to Thornberry here?
Quite. It’s at least equally likely that she was bursting with national pride as she posted that
I always assumed she just thought it funny that she had found a house that lived up to every stereotypical attitude that liberal Londoners might have about people from Kent.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
FFS why stop there. What's wrong with eradicate world poverty and abolish disease?
You're living in La-la-land pal.
The fear amongst left wingers here that we might get an actual Conservative Prime Minister who might succeed by cutting taxes is quite palpable.
Was that the same fear the left were supposed to have of Mourdaunt, or Badenoch, or whoever the moment’s great blue hope is?
I suspect Labours fear of Truss is the same as the Tory fear of Corbyn.
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
The "allegations" are known about by all and sundry, It's not going to be a coronation because of those reasons.
In 2022 i doubt very much that an affair would derail anyone. Truss saw off the turnip taliban in 2010 over the Field issue by a landslide before she was known in politics
Lib Dems advertising defections away from them. Bold. The UnSwinson approach. 'We are so shit everyone flees when they grow up. Even a prat like Liz worked it out'
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Er, can you point me to the source for the quote you attribute to Thornberry here?
Quite. It’s at least equally likely that she was bursting with national pride as she posted that
That'll be why she apologised and resigned, I suppose - national pride was inconsistent with Corbyn's Labour?
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
I think rarely, this is one of the cases where Labour got it right.
In Government, only the MPs get a say on the leader, as far as I recall
Are you sure that's right? I'm not sure it is. I believe the reason there was no ballot in 2007 is that the only other candidate (John McDonnell) didn't secure the 12.5% of MPs' nominations (i.e. 45 at the time) required.
I believe that the threshold is now 20%, so that gives MPs a degree of power. Arguably, if it was the same with the Tories, only Sunak made 20% in the first round so he'd have been elected unopposed. In reality, though, it's likely the field would just have narrowed naturally as people struggled to get signatures, and Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt would all have made it (probably that's it although in theory one more might have made it).
IIRC what is different for Labour in government is how a leadership election can be triggered.
Ah, right.
Of course, the current Conservative leadership contest wasn't triggered under the rules for triggering a leadership contest (there was a threat the rules would be changed but it didn't come to that). A reminder that, when political reality meets the rule book, political reality tends to win - authority evaporating is the bigger force.
I'm also reminded of the old Fixed Term Parliaments Act. We had endless debates on here about how hard it would be to have an early election, but oppositions can't really be seen to say "no, ta" to an opportunity for an early vote. It potentially could have been relevant in a hung Parliament where the coalition partner has other options (which it didn't 2010-15 as the numbers didn't work) or a pretty extreme case of opportunism. But in 2017 and 2019 it just wasn't an issue (and now it is no more).
Lib Dems advertising defections away from them. Bold. The UnSwinson approach. 'We are so shit everyone flees when they grow up'
But, why is it so many Lib Dems look like that? Sarah Teather, Ed Davey, Jo Swinson.. they all look a bit like Truss then.
It's like clothes died of root vegetables, boring haircuts, no make-up, smarminess and an air of condescension is essential to go with the utterly tedious politics.
Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss. https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808
The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.
I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.
The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.
A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.
Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
FFS why stop there. What's wrong with eradicate world poverty and abolish disease?
You're living in La-la-land pal.
The fear amongst left wingers here that we might get an actual Conservative Prime Minister who might succeed by cutting taxes is quite palpable.
It's hardly a left v right issue. And the fear is that she might succeed in bribing the electorate in the very short term while destroying the nation's credit, with predictably dire economic consequences to follow.
Tom McTague on Truss: “There is, I think, an idealism there, weirdly consistent through Lib Dem, Remain and current incarnations: Reaganite freedom. She applies this to China and Russia today. Does Rishi? Or is he an Osbornite technocrat?”
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
FFS why stop there. What's wrong with eradicate world poverty and abolish disease?
You're living in La-la-land pal.
The fear amongst left wingers here that we might get an actual Conservative Prime Minister who might succeed by cutting taxes is quite palpable.
Lib Dems advertising defections away from them. Bold. The UnSwinson approach. 'We are so shit everyone flees when they grow up'
But, why is it so many Lib Dems look like that? Sarah Teather, Ed Davey, Jo Swinson.. they all look a bit like Truss then.
It's like clothes died of root vegetables, boring haircuts, no make-up, smarminess and an air of condescension is essential to go with the utterly tedious politics.
Politics of bland misery. Sandalistas. Go back to your constituencies and prepare for a plain ryvita.
EXCLUSIVE: I am told Keir Starmer will scrap the pledges to nationalise National Grid, water and Royal Mail.
Tuition fees remain in debate, I am told Labour will in the meantime focus on early education including bringing back SureStart.
Not nationalising water is a mistake. I think it would have popular support as everyone fucking hates the water companies. Charge a fortune and don't do anything for their money.
I suspect RP has a plan below that allows a nationalisation to be prepared for long term while in the short term ensuring investment was made without massive profits.
Can you see any flaws in his solution?
The likes of Thames Water don't invest. Or if they do it is mega expensive with consumers footing the bill. So instead, one of my StateCo providers does the infrastructure over the heads of Thames Water, using government borrowing rates, and the water companies etc are simply regulated to accept it or quit.
And if they do, they'll pick the most profitable for themselves, regardless of the damage and cost to others, and push out the best for the consumer and the country
Numbers to hand from I think the last report before COVID - 2018-2019. Nov 2019.
I may have been unintentionally misleading with my choice of language. By "push out the best for the consumer and the country," I meant that their choice would exclude what is best for the consumer and country in favour of what is best for their profits.
Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss. https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808
The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.
I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.
The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.
A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.
Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.
It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.
(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
The "allegations" are known about by all and sundry, It's not going to be a coronation because of those reasons.
In 2022 i doubt very much that an affair would derail anyone. Truss saw off the turnip taliban in 2010 over the Field issue by a landslide before she was known in politics
Those allegations about to destroy Truss better not be BS. 🤷♀️ you guys are either bs ing, or better at searching internet than me. The only thing I found Liz Truss stopped UK media using was the unfortunate gust of wind photo.
I saw rumours of a Quasi-affair. Would not vouch for their authenticity.
I'm not sure if this is a phrase we're not supposed to Google, but what on Earth is a Quasi-affair, that's not a term I've ever heard before.
Women are just as entitled to enjoy sex as men are and what consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is up to them and their partners, nobody else.
Truss's husband seems to have been OK with her affair in the past and that ought to be the end of the matter. She could have a completely open marriage and it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to her suitability to high office.
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
The "allegations" are known about by all and sundry, It's not going to be a coronation because of those reasons.
I'm clearly not "all and sundry". I have no idea what these allegations are.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
FFS why stop there. What's wrong with eradicate world poverty and abolish disease?
You're living in La-la-land pal.
The fear amongst left wingers here that we might get an actual Conservative Prime Minister who might succeed by cutting taxes is quite palpable.
It's hardly a left v right issue. And the fear is that she might succeed in bribing the electorate in the very short term while destroying the nation's credit, with predictably dire economic consequences to follow.
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
The "allegations" are known about by all and sundry, It's not going to be a coronation because of those reasons.
In 2022 i doubt very much that an affair would derail anyone. Truss saw off the turnip taliban in 2010 over the Field issue by a landslide before she was known in politics
Those allegations about to destroy Truss better not be BS. 🤷♀️ you guys are either bs ing, or better at searching internet than me. The only thing I found Liz Truss stopped UK media using was the unfortunate gust of wind photo.
Quite rightly too. There are many reasons to deplore Truss as a politician, but an unintentional upskirting photo is not one of them, photos hopped or not.
Vote for me, I was wrong on what you consider to be our defining political issue.
Well, it's brave. And it's actually probably the most helpful thing she could say, as trying to hedge won't help her.
But she does not want this to become a referendum on Euroscepticism.
Wait till she finds out she was a Minister and MP for 12 years of a government with the wrong economic policies.
Was she?
That. Is. A. Disgrace.
On the topic of her cheese speech - or the Jarlsberg Address as it should be called - I think too many people focus on the terrible delivery and too few on its terrible content. Truss's basic argument is that the UK exports - great! And the UK imports - a disgrace! Thus completely misunderstanding the whole concept of international trade.
"In December I'll be in Beijing, opening up new pork markets"
It's kind of in the so bad it's good category. This is the one slight risk for 'us' with Truss. She could develop a bit of 'quirky national treasure' appeal to the unwary.
Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss. https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808
The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.
I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.
The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.
A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.
Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.
It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.
(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)
Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.
Because making ourselves America's b*tch has always worked out so well for us.
Has Putinguy1983 hacked your account?
Pretty much, yes, absolutely it has, though as the article says Truss has been out in front of Biden and Blinken, and not just behind following them. Johnson was too.
I think our foreign and security policy should be guided by our own interests, not Neocon talking points. On Russia, which represents a security threat to us, we should absolutely be standing up to Putin alongside America and anyone else who is up for it. Read through my posts, I have never said anything different. But the China-US rivalry is different, as China isn't a threat to our security, and frankly a lot of the bluster on the US side is down to their own sense of supremacy being threatened. That is their problem, not ours.
China absolutely is a threat to our security, even more than Russia is.
As horrendous as Putin's invasion of Ukraine is, China invading Taiwan would be an order of magnitude worse. Ukraine is a substantial grain exporter and Russia a substantial energy exporter so this war has helped fuel a cost of living crisis with energy and food, but Taiwan is the leading global supplier of high end electronic chips that run the modern economy and China is the leading global exporter full stop.
A China/Taiwan war would be utterly catastrophic for the global economy and thus our own security in a way that would absolutely dwarf our current crisis. Joining with the USA, Japan, Australia and other allies in deterring that risk is great value for money and is another reason why Putin's invasion of Ukraine must be seen to fail, to deter China too.
The world today is all interconnected, you can't look at one alone and ignore the rest of the globe.
The deterrence value of whatever paltry forces we could project in the Taiwan Strait is not going to be the difference between China invading Taiwan or not. This is the kind of Neocon talking points that got hundreds of British servicemen and women killed in Iraq. If the world economy is that dependent on key components from a geopolitical flash point I would suggest investment in supply diversification may represent a safer and cheaper course of action.
To do my best Chandler Bing impression - Could you be any more wrong?
The deterrence value of UK forces operating alone would not be the difference, that is true.
But the UK isn't operating alone. The deterrence value of the UK and the USA, Australia, India, Japan, Poland and the rest of the civilised world standing together in unison is immense. This is one area whereby working together we are more than the sum of our parts.
You are as utterly naive and reprehensible as the so-called "realists" who wanted to sell out Ukraine at the start of the conflict as Putin's victory was "inevitable" so we may as well accept that reality.
You are being naïve if you think the US is simply defending the "free world" here rather than defending its own hegemonic position. Of course the US has every right to do this, and in many ways its hegemony is preferable to the alternatives, but I just don't think this is our conflict. Ukraine is our conflict, because it will determine the security of the whole of Europe and Russia is an expansionist power on our doorstep. Anyway, I look forward to you signing up so you can put your own life at risk in pursuit of America's foreign policy goals, rather than just other people's.
If it were only the US that were worried about the risk of China invading Taiwan you might have some credibility that it is just the US defending its own position. Its not though, its the entire civilised world who are uniting because they know the threat is very real.
Stop and look at what China has already been willing to do with the Tibetans, Hong Kong and the Uighur. That you can look at that and seriously say "China is not a threat" is baffling, you are an apologist for evil.
Apologist for evil, give me a break. You drink too much coffee. You can't divide the world up into white hats and black hats. China has done lots of bad stuff, as have other countries. I am not defending them, I find their system of government reprehensible. But they are not an aggressively expansionist power and never have been, unlike Russia or for that matter Britain. I don't think we need to get involved in some war on the other side of the world where the link to British interests is not absolutely clear. And to be honest I find it odd that people who claim to be British patriots are so ready to embrace the agenda of another foreign power on this issue.
Some parts of the world are shades of grey, but (and this must be my famous "reactionary" attitude according to @Nigel_Foremain ) I greatly dislike the antiquated term "black and white" since it implies black = bad and white = good.
The use of white/lightness for good and black/darkness for bad long predates the use of white and black to describe skin colour.
Language evolves though, we don't still speak ye olde English.
Continuing to use such language now is repugnant to me. 👎
Your attitude is not dissimilar to this:
I'm a tad confused, in your eyes am I supposed to be the house's resident or Thornberry?
I know which one I'd identify more with.
Thornberry.
Her attitude was "some people who fly the English flag and drive white vans are racist, therefore this is a house where racists live"
Your attitude seems to be "some people use white and black in some contexts to be racist, therefore all uses of white and black are racist"
Not remotely the same at all.
The English flag is still the English flag, continuing to use it represents nothing more or less than being English.
White and black is antiquated and no longer appropriate good and evil paradigms, even if it used to be in the past.
Using black as a derogatory term today is not like flying the English flag, its like flying the flag of the Confederacy.
What about chess? White always goes first, surely that's racist.
Since neither first nor second is objectively considered "better" or "good" or "bad" I would say no.
And, in a series of matches, research has shown that the person who plays white first carries an advantage into subsequent matches, with a 62 per cent winning advantage at the elite level. This is despite players playing an equal number of games as white and black.
The advantage enjoyed by white is amplified further in the world of computer chess. In 2020, AlphaZero, said to be the world’s most powerful chess engine, played against itself in 10,000 games, taking a minute per move. White won in 86 per cent of the decisive games, giving it about a 6:1 advantage, though these games constituted only two per cent of the total— 98 per cent were draws...
Trouble us thats tinkering to sort out the very highest levels. The masters database on Lichess covering titled pkayers games gives 33/43/24 white/draw/black so a moderate advantage but the all games database of iver 500 million games which includes all levels from novice to master is 49/4/46. The advantage increases the more 'computer accurate' you get. For 99% of players its minimal. They could look at increasing 'positive' results by changes like returning to stalemate being a win or the armageddon rules where black has less time but gets the win with a drawn game.
I'm a bit surprised at the 49/4/46 stat. But a couple of points:
-Without checking (do you have a link?) this looks like something that must include blitz/bullet games, do you have stats which only includes longer time limits? Bullet games will definitely even up the stats as inaccuracies by the players will quickly overwhelm the small advantage white has.
-At higher levels, players are more likely to be playing players at a similar level - if you are playing someone much better or much worse than you, that will be more important than who has white.
-I'm not sure including novice games is really fair - again mistakes made would quickly be much more important than who went first.
You have to be able to play a little to make use of white's advantage, and you have to be playing against someone at not too dissimilar level for it to count for anything, and you have to have a time limit where inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders aren't usually going to be worth much more than going first.
So it depends how you look at it, but as someone who used to play chess quite seriously, I would say you definitely do not have to be anywhere near the "very highest levels" for white to have a clear advantage, especially at longer time limits.
Vote for me, I was wrong on what you consider to be our defining political issue.
Well, it's brave. And it's actually probably the most helpful thing she could say, as trying to hedge won't help her.
But she does not want this to become a referendum on Euroscepticism.
Wait till she finds out she was a Minister and MP for 12 years of a government with the wrong economic policies.
Was she?
That. Is. A. Disgrace.
On the topic of her cheese speech - or the Jarlsberg Address as it should be called - I think too many people focus on the terrible delivery and too few on its terrible content. Truss's basic argument is that the UK exports - great! And the UK imports - a disgrace! Thus completely misunderstanding the whole concept of international trade.
"In December I'll be in Beijing, opening up new pork markets"
It's kind of in the so bad it's good category. This is the one slight risk for 'us' with Truss. She could develop a bit of 'quirky national treasure' appeal to the unwary.
Did she go to Wuhan?
I don't expect her to get national treasure status for the same reason that I don't expect Sunak to. You have to be a posh white man in this country to be a completely incompetent moron and get indulged for it.
Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss. https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808
The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.
I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.
The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.
A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.
Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.
It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.
(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)
Another problem with politicians and affairs are abuses of power, where a politician might harass a junior staffer or party member, or pressure them into a relationship. We’ve seen this a lot in recent years.
Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss. https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808
The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.
I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.
The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.
A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.
Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.
It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.
(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)
Oh give over, this is the same sort of condescending nonsense that implies that unmarried women aren't fit to be out and about or in the workplace.
Who's condescending? That comment of mine was completely gender and sex neutral, in my intent and wording.
If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.
Edit: not so much because you are getting up to mischief but because you won't spot it or do anything about it when it is a problem with others.
Badenoch and Tugendhat, the stars of the leadership contest, are probably going to end up around the cabinet table whoever is in charge, but Mordaunt is now an island around which almost all bridges have been burned and it is difficult to see how either leadership candidate could work closely with her.
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
The "allegations" are known about by all and sundry, It's not going to be a coronation because of those reasons.
In 2022 i doubt very much that an affair would derail anyone. Truss saw off the turnip taliban in 2010 over the Field issue by a landslide before she was known in politics
Those allegations about to destroy Truss better not be BS. 🤷♀️ you guys are either bs ing, or better at searching internet than me. The only thing I found Liz Truss stopped UK media using was the unfortunate gust of wind photo.
I saw rumours of a Quasi-affair. Would not vouch for their authenticity.
I'm not sure if this is a phrase we're not supposed to Google, but what on Earth is a Quasi-affair, that's not a term I've ever heard before.
Women are just as entitled to enjoy sex as men are and what consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is up to them and their partners, nobody else.
Truss's husband seems to have been OK with her affair in the past and that ought to be the end of the matter. She could have a completely open marriage and it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to her suitability to high office.
Health experts are alarmed that, for the first time since 1990, we are seeing cases of TORY HORN in Great Britain.
Tory horn is believed to occur when a powerful woman of a certain age promises radical change along conservative lines in a trenchant and uncompromising manner.
Team Truss obviously very happy. Team Sunak very happy. But perhaps the happiest people I’ve spoken to this afternoon are Labour people… Mordaunt was, by some way, the candidate that there were most worried about. They’ve been hoping for some time it would be Sunak V Truss. https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1549791598019575808
The problem with Mourdaunt was that people projected on her all their hopes and dreams and created the image of some sort of perfect Tory leader, but the brutal reality was that didn’t stack up. That and the Daily Mail did for her.
I was very much Team Penny, I don’t think anyone thought she was perfect. I think most people thought that her many strengths outweighed her weaknesses. The viciousness of the onslaught of briefings and what masquerades as journalism was in no way proportionate. It’s a very serious stain on the broad centre right space. I’m the bitterest I’ve been as a party member in a long time.
The attacks on Mourdaunt were unfair and brutal, I am not surprised you are bruised. It was not acceptable. My only hope is the next time this stuff is dished out at a Labour leader you don’t buy into it.
A candidate for PM who cannot explain or defend what they said on the record in the Commons or in speeches is not fit for the job. To the extent that people questioned her on what she said there was nothing unfair or brutal about it. She was preparing her campaign for leader for a while. She ought to have had better answers than she did and not told untruths. We have had far too little scrutiny of people seeking power as it is.
Without details, it is hard to say but a lot of the rumours about affairs on this thread and twitter amount to pearl clutching at the thought women might enjoy and initiate sex. If affairs are off limits, explain Boris.
It's not the affairs (apart from the reflection on pesrsonal honesty) that are the problems for a politician, but the concealed favouritism, blackmail potential and distraction from the day job that affairs, and sorting out the consequences when they are discovered, that are the issues.
(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)
Another problem with politicians and affairs are abuses of power, where a politician might harass a junior staffer or party member, or pressure them into a relationship. We’ve seen this a lot in recent years.
Quite. But to some folk it's all part of the fun of being boss or teacher. Not just in Parliament.
Got a say I think Luz is smart to go after the economics even of the period she has been in government. People dont mind a u-turner if they agree with the u-turn, and it probably fits with what people think. It also means Sunak will be the 'everything's alright' candidate which even Tories probably dont think.
All part of Liz's expert courting of the tory party.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
Pandering to rather than courting. She is a wrong un.
Like Boris Johnson, she would order a slaughter of the first born and put her grandmother up for auction on Ebay if she thought it might further her career. She is an anti-conviction politician. A wannabe pound-shop Thatcher without the talent.
You and HYUFD being so anti Truss helps reinforce for me the fact she's the best candidate.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
Just a shame she’s off her head.
People said the same about Thatcher herself.
If being on your head means nothing more than higher taxes and managed decline then we need someone off it. 👍
Obviously this is for Tory members to make a judgment and they won't listen to me, but still.
My own view on Truss is she doesn't really bear close comparison with Thatcher.
They share a fashion sense as has been pointed out many times. But that is entirely her choice and I feel a little uncomfortable about the jibe as people do tend to focus on it specifically with female MPs (perhaps inevitably as there's effectively a uniform for male MPs, but I think it's best avoided).
Truss is also not "off her head" or "thick" or "a lightweight" as is bandied about very freely by opponents (and was about Thatcher, particularly in opposition and early in her Premiership). She's an intelligent person and capable politician. I'd not say she's got a stellar record as minister, but has tended to stay out of trouble. That was the May and Major route to Number 10, of course, and there's a genuine risk that the Peter Principle applies as it did in those cases, but there we are.
The big difference with Thatcher is I don't believe for one second that there are any deeply rooted principles there. She is - and this isn't necessarily a criticism although it can be - a pragmatist with very little in the way of an anchor. So she will bitterly disappoint anyone wanting a Truss Revolution akin to the Thatcher Revolution. She will campaign one way, but govern another - it will be cautious and conventional, punctuated by u-turns as she won't stick to things where there is difficulty.
I know Bartholomew and others won't agree, but that's my cut-out-and-keep guide, and let's see how it goes from September to 2024 if she's elected.
Comments
I'm sure some people have called chess racist, I think to most people that would be a rediculous claim.
''I was loyal''
That girl knows how the blue grassroots feel, what they think and what they like in the political boudoir....
'Liz Truss is struggling to win over Scottish Tories, as many fear that a “Boris continuity candidate” will have precisely the same effect that Johnson has done on their ratings.
Amid Partygate allegations, the Scottish Tories plunged to their worst electoral result in a decade in May’s council elections.
Party sources have briefed that Truss, despite her Paisley upbringing and claims to be a “child of the union”, is “too close to Boris”.
Only one MSP – Oliver Mundell – has so far declared his support for her, while former leader Ruth Davidson has written in the Telegraph this morning supporting Rishi Sunak, saying: “Now is not the time to gamble with the nation’s bank balance.”'
So glad to hear about the little lady, I am sure you're a great father. Happy you'll be getting away soon, I'm off to the South of France in August.
It is not in principle crazy. Whether it is a good idea depends on what the economy needs at the time. Cutting taxes in a recession, for example, is a form of Keynesiasm. Truss's point is that we are heading into a recession which she says is caused or at least aggravated by tax increases which are killing growth. I don't think that this is right. We are heading into a recession because of the aftermath of Covid on economic activity along with a serious supply side shock on fuel and food triggered by the Ukraine war.
My further concern is that we do not obviously seem to be struggling with a lack of demand. We have full employment, a huge trade deficit and a very large fiscal deficit boosting demand. We also have very high inflation, hopefully for a short period only. If the lack of demand is not the problem then it is less obvious to me that cutting taxes is the solution, particularly since that is inevitably going to increase demand in a tight labour market and future inflation.
So I think she is wrong about this. But she is not insane.
- Homes England failed to hit any of its housing delivery targets in 2021-22, blaming labour and material shortages and “challenges in the planning system”.
… the government’s housing agency missed its affordable homes completion target by 21.5%. It aimed to support the completion of 34,349 affordable homes in 2020-21, but only helped deliver 26,953.
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/homes-england-misses-all-of-its-housing-delivery-targets-76599
But Barber was definitely a cut above this lot.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and-should-resign/
She is a wrong un.
I put my hand up, I was wrong. I didn't know that.
'' I have sinned!''
Well, it's brave. And it's actually probably the most helpful thing she could say, as trying to hedge won't help her.
But she does not want this to become a referendum on Euroscepticism.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/simple-rule-change-could-mean-check-mate-for-unfair-advantage-in-chess
...According to the researchers, in matches that have a winner at the elite level of human play, white has a winning percentage of 64 per cent – equating to an average advantage of almost 2:1 over black.
And, in a series of matches, research has shown that the person who plays white first carries an advantage into subsequent matches, with a 62 per cent winning advantage at the elite level. This is despite players playing an equal number of games as white and black.
The advantage enjoyed by white is amplified further in the world of computer chess. In 2020, AlphaZero, said to be the world’s most powerful chess engine, played against itself in 10,000 games, taking a minute per move. White won in 86 per cent of the decisive games, giving it about a 6:1 advantage, though these games constituted only two per cent of the total— 98 per cent were draws...
That. Is. A. Disgrace.
...Members of Parliament shouting abuse at staff was something frequently referred to, with the abusive phrase “you’re f***ing useless,” shouted at close quarters, being described independently, by a number of people working in different departments, as a regular event...
As if it's a mere 'impression!'
However, having just read the comments here, there would appear to be allegations that, if they emerge in the next few weeks, would turn this contest into a coronation. My only source is the comments on this thread. I must say it would have been helpful if these allegations had emerged a bit earlier (I blame nobody here for that of course, I assume others are trying to suppress it), before the MPs had narrowed it down, but there we are.
If she can reverse the tax rises, grow the economy, shrink the deficit with falling tax rates, resolve the NI issues with her Protocol plan and help continue to lead the West in supporting Ukraine to defeat Russia, while working with our allies to constrain China ... If she can do all that she had a chance of overtaking Boris as the second best PM of my lifetime.
The masters database on Lichess covering titled pkayers games gives 33/43/24 white/draw/black so a moderate advantage but the all games database of iver 500 million games which includes all levels from novice to master is 49/4/46. The advantage increases the more 'computer accurate' you get. For 99% of players its minimal.
They could look at increasing 'positive' results by changes like returning to stalemate being a win or the armageddon rules where black has less time but gets the win with a drawn game.
You're living in La-la-land pal.
Yes, they do. And a good deal of it is regulated.
https://www.thameswater.co.uk/media-library/home/about-us/investors/our-finances-explained-nov-19.pdf
Allegations about policy issues have already done for one favourite in this contest, and may well do for one of those remaining.
If being on your head means nothing more than higher taxes and managed decline then we need someone off it. 👍
I suspect Labours fear of Truss is the same as the Tory fear of Corbyn.
View from Kyle of Lochalsh station
'We are so shit everyone flees when they grow up. Even a prat like Liz worked it out'
Of course, the current Conservative leadership contest wasn't triggered under the rules for triggering a leadership contest (there was a threat the rules would be changed but it didn't come to that). A reminder that, when political reality meets the rule book, political reality tends to win - authority evaporating is the bigger force.
I'm also reminded of the old Fixed Term Parliaments Act. We had endless debates on here about how hard it would be to have an early election, but oppositions can't really be seen to say "no, ta" to an opportunity for an early vote. It potentially could have been relevant in a hung Parliament where the coalition partner has other options (which it didn't 2010-15 as the numbers didn't work) or a pretty extreme case of opportunism. But in 2017 and 2019 it just wasn't an issue (and now it is no more).
It's like clothes died of root vegetables, boring haircuts, no make-up, smarminess and an air of condescension is essential to go with the utterly tedious politics.
And the fear is that she might succeed in bribing the electorate in the very short term while destroying the nation's credit, with predictably dire economic consequences to follow.
The FT has a decent thread on Trussnomics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1550063433269362689
TRUSSONOMICS: a thread
In her interview on
@BBCr4today
, Liz Truss made 3 economic propositions
1) Her tax cuts will decrease inflation
2) Tax cuts boost growth and prevent recession
3) Tax cuts increase government revenues
It would be great if these were true..
https://twitter.com/tommctague/status/1550026621272334340
Investment is regulated and approved by Ofwat, to the extent that they do a five yearly business plan. They say it has doubled since privatisation.
https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/investment-in-the-water-industry/
(This is a generic comment, not intended to reflect on Ms Truss.)
Women are just as entitled to enjoy sex as men are and what consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is up to them and their partners, nobody else.
Truss's husband seems to have been OK with her affair in the past and that ought to be the end of the matter. She could have a completely open marriage and it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to her suitability to high office.
Nobody seems to have noticed that under Rishi Sunak's tax regime inflation has rocketed to 9.4%.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1549779249644683264
It's kind of in the so bad it's good category. This is the one slight risk for 'us' with Truss. She could develop a bit of 'quirky national treasure' appeal to the unwary.
-Without checking (do you have a link?) this looks like something that must include blitz/bullet games, do you have stats which only includes longer time limits? Bullet games will definitely even up the stats as inaccuracies by the players will quickly overwhelm the small advantage white has.
-At higher levels, players are more likely to be playing players at a similar level - if you are playing someone much better or much worse than you, that will be more important than who has white.
-I'm not sure including novice games is really fair - again mistakes made would quickly be much more important than who went first.
You have to be able to play a little to make use of white's advantage, and you have to be playing against someone at not too dissimilar level for it to count for anything, and you have to have a time limit where inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders aren't usually going to be worth much more than going first.
So it depends how you look at it, but as someone who used to play chess quite seriously, I would say you definitely do not have to be anywhere near the "very highest levels" for white to have a clear advantage, especially at longer time limits.
I don't expect her to get national treasure status for the same reason that I don't expect Sunak to. You have to be a posh white man in this country to be a completely incompetent moron and get indulged for it.
If you are in such denial, then you are the one who is a flaming menace to your employer and your shareholders, colleagues and suborsdinates.
Edit: not so much because you are getting up to mischief but because you won't spot it or do anything about it when it is a problem with others.
I think that was more than generally expected?
Tory horn is believed to occur when a powerful woman of a certain age promises radical change along conservative lines in a trenchant and uncompromising manner.
My own view on Truss is she doesn't really bear close comparison with Thatcher.
They share a fashion sense as has been pointed out many times. But that is entirely her choice and I feel a little uncomfortable about the jibe as people do tend to focus on it specifically with female MPs (perhaps inevitably as there's effectively a uniform for male MPs, but I think it's best avoided).
Truss is also not "off her head" or "thick" or "a lightweight" as is bandied about very freely by opponents (and was about Thatcher, particularly in opposition and early in her Premiership). She's an intelligent person and capable politician. I'd not say she's got a stellar record as minister, but has tended to stay out of trouble. That was the May and Major route to Number 10, of course, and there's a genuine risk that the Peter Principle applies as it did in those cases, but there we are.
The big difference with Thatcher is I don't believe for one second that there are any deeply rooted principles there. She is - and this isn't necessarily a criticism although it can be - a pragmatist with very little in the way of an anchor. So she will bitterly disappoint anyone wanting a Truss Revolution akin to the Thatcher Revolution. She will campaign one way, but govern another - it will be cautious and conventional, punctuated by u-turns as she won't stick to things where there is difficulty.
I know Bartholomew and others won't agree, but that's my cut-out-and-keep guide, and let's see how it goes from September to 2024 if she's elected.